That Dáil Éireann, believing that for
social and economic reasons, the Claremorris-Limerick
railway passenger service should not be discontinued, calls
on the Government to ensure that the passenger and freight
service on this line be improved immediately so as to
attract more business.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann"
and to substitute the following:

"recognises that under Section 19 of the Transport Act,
1958 the Board of CIE is empowered to terminate any train
service provided the Board is satisfied that the service is
uneconomic and that there is no prospect of its continued
operation being economic within a reasonable period; and
takes note that the Board proposes to provide alternative
road passenger services in lieu of the rail passenger
services on the Limerick-Claremorris railway line."

Minister for Transport and Power
(Mr. P. Barry): I spoke for a short time on this
debate last night on the motion introduced by the Members
opposite that for social and economic reasons this line
should be retained. I proposed my amendment which says that
this House should recognise the value of the 1958 Act which
put the onus on the people who know, that is the board of
CIE, what line should be retained and what they should give
permission to shut down. When Deputy Barrett opened the
debate he said that this was the biggest closure in the
history of CIE. This is not correct and he knows it is not
because this is not a closure. No line is being closed here.
There is a withdrawal of an underused, uneconomic passenger
service. That is all that is involved here.

Closures are what happened when Deputy Barrett's party
were in power in the 1960s when the services were withdrawn,
both passenger and freight, when the men were laid off, when
the key was turned in the station door, when the line was
taken up and when the land was sold. That is a closure. This
is not a closure but a withdrawal of a service which was
costing the taxpayer £250,000 a year to maintain. It is
not true to say as was inferred here and in comments in the
newspapers and by deputations, that CIE are withdrawing from
the west of Ireland. The opposite is true. CIE put their
money where their mouth is in this regard. They have spent
£600,000 in the last two years in upgrading stations
but the railway system in this country could not live if the
same approach to it had continued. There must be a new
dynamic approach to CIE if we are to maintain the railways
because to keep on uneconomic lines, to keep on handling
goods as they were handled in the last 20 years, would be a
certainty to bring about the complete closure of all rail
services not just to the west of Ireland but to the south
and east coasts as well. This is not the attitude of the
Government and it is not what CIE want to do. They are
upgrading the stations in the west. They are laying new
permanent way. They are investing in new rolling stock. They
are doing all this with the idea of providing efficient
services from Galway, from Westport, from Ballina, from
Sligo into Dublin and out of it. This will be a help to the
west of Ireland.

There is no bonus for the west if the people there insist
on maintaining services which they themselves will not
support. If the people through their normal loyalty will not
support these lines, how can they expect industrialists who
come here to support them? If the local people who have a
local interest in maintaining the lines will not support
them, why should any industrialists support them? There are
two ways to see that these lines are maintained. First, CIE
must make the services efficient. They must give a fast
modern service for freight and passengers. Secondly, the
local people must support them and must generate trade for
them. If that is done, the railways in the west are
secure.

If I thought the Opposition would win the next general
election, I should accept this motion and bring in a Bill
amending section 19 of the Transport Act and let whoever is
Minister for Transport and Power suffer the consequences and
pick up the bits and pieces for the next ten years. I know
that will not happen. Therefore, I will resist this motion.
I have introduced my amendment which I am quite happy will
be carried by this House.

Mr. Hussey: I want to
assure the Minister that we are quite certain we will win
the next general election. If he has any notion of changing
the Transport Act, 1958, this is a good time to do it. I
support the motion in the names of Deputy Barrett and the
other Fianna Fáil Deputies from the west requesting
that this branch line be kept in operation. I am
disappointed that the Government Deputies from the west did
not put their names to the motion. I am sure their hearts
were dictating that they should do so but, for political
reasons apparently, they were not allowed to.

This motion is intended to highlight the serious threat
to the social and economic life of the western community by
the withdrawal by CIE of the passenger service on the
Claremorris/Limerick line as and from April 5th. I should
like to thank the Galway County Manager, Mr. Keating, and
the County Development Officer, Mr. Lynch, for the valuable
help they gave to the action committee which was set up to
fight against this closure. They were very helpful and gave
all the assistance they possibly could.

This action committee was set up in the west and was
representative of all the commercial and trading interests
in the west as well as the elected Members of all political
parties. It failed so far to get a reprieve for this
service. A deputation led by the Galway County Manager was
received by the Minister for Transport and Power and by the
chairman and board of management of CIE. The case for the
retention of this line was put very forcefully by members of
the deputation.

The deputation put forward some very concrete proposals
which, if accepted and implemented, would definitely attract
more business for the branch line in question. Those
proposals included an alternative timetable which would fit
in with the other services provided and would be far more
effective in achieving connections with other trains. I have
no doubt that if the alternative timetable were given a
chance and the service improved, it would attract more
people to use the service.

In spite of the deputation's efforts, the letters which
subsequently arrived from the Minister and from the chairman
of CIE bore out our worst fears. There was to be no
reprieve, no salvation for this line. It was condemned by
the board of CIE as being uneconomic. That was it as far as
they were concerned. We were disappointed by that reply. We
were far more disappointed by the Minister's reply dated
March 10th, which told us in effect that he had no function
in this matter, that any decision relating to a particular
line rested with the board of CIE.

Section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, may have given CIE
power to terminate any rail passenger or rail freight
service provided the board are satisfied that the service is
uneconomic. The last part of section 19 (2) is very
important as far as this closure is concerned. The wording
is "and that there is no prospect of its continued operation
being economic within a reasonable period". CIE have made no
effort to make the service economic. It is a bad service.
Those who attended protest meetings in the west know the
type of service provided, the type of connections, the
delays in delivering goods, and so on. With a little
foresight and energy, an acceptable timetable could be drawn
up which would make this service more attractive to people
in the west to use it.

There is a prospect of making this service economical
within a reasonable period, if CIE would do the job which
they were appointed to do, that is, to provide an efficient
rail and freight service and go out and sell that service.
They have not made any attempt to sell their service so far.
The Minister and the Government may try to shelter behind
the Transport Act, 1958, and wash their hands of this issue.
I was very disappointed yesterday evening at the Minister's
whole approach to the railway system. I dread to think what
would happen if CIE decided to terminate the services west
of the Shannon and come no further than Athlone. Would the
Minister's approach be the same as he outlined here last
night? I do not think it should be. Regardless of what the
1958 Act says, there is a question of accountability and CIE
are accountable to this House. We have to vote them money
each year. We have to give them a huge subvention, which has
been increasing yearly. This year it is in the region of
£28 million and next year I believe it will be £40
million. This money is voted to CIE to provide a rail and
passenger service. It comes from the taxpayers, and we in
the west of Ireland pay our share of tax. Surely in a matter
such as this, which is of such vital importance to the
development of the west, the Minister is entitled to
intervene and to tell CIE he is not prepared to sacrifice
the future prospects of the west for a lousy figure of
£250,000. That is the figure mentioned by CIE. It is
the projected loss given for the passenger service on this
line. As was pointed out by Deputy Barrett yesterday, it is
very questionable.

During the course of our discussions with CIE we failed
to get a satisfactory answer as to how they arrived at the
figure of £250,000. As Deputy Barrett pointed out, in a
recent statement the chairman of CIE said that labour costs
represent 63 per cent of their total cost. On this line
there are 30 men involved in the operation of the passenger
service and after this closure 21 of them will become
redundant. They have an average wage of £2,000, which
makes a total of approximately £60,000. It can be
worked out fairly conclusively that a more accurate figure
of the loss on this line would be £100,000. This is a
very small figure-it is only one-quarter of 1 per cent of
the total loss for the year for CIE. It is a very small
figure when one considers the amount they will be looking
for next year.

This closure is coming at a very bad time. We all know
the importance of a rail link for industrial development in
any part of the country. In the west we are trying to
develop industries and all the State agencies are at their
wits' end to attract industry to the western [714]
region. It is very disappointing to see at this time that
one State agency, CIE, are pulling out of the west and, in
effect, they are telling the world they have no confidence
in the area, that it is not a viable proposition for them to
operate there.

The IDA, the county development teams, Gaeltarra
Éireann, the Office of Public Works, the local
authorities, the RDOs, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Bord
Fáilte, Comhlucht Siicre Éireann and
many others are still trying to establish industry and
create employment in the western region. What effect will
the pending closure have on their efforts?

CIE may say that it is only the passenger service that is
involved and the Minister spelled this out this evening.
However, it is generally accepted in the west that the
removal of the passenger service is only the first step
towards the withdrawal of goods services and the subsequent
closure of the line.

Mr. Donnellan: There
is no point in being a prophet of doom.

Mr. Hussey: The
writing is on the wall.

Mr. P. Barry: It need
not be.

Mr. Hussey: I am
worried about the Minister's remarks yesterday evening and
today. I must say to the Minister that I was disappointed at
his attitude towards the deputation. He received the people
very courteously but I was disappointed at his approach last
night when he said they would be better employed trying to
get business for CIE. That is not the function of the
deputation.

The IDA have said that the removal of a freight line to
the west would be a matter of serious concern to them. We
can well understand why it would worry them because they
have to try to sell the various locations to industrialists.
Major industry is very thin on the ground in the west. The
IDA must offer every inducement to foreign industrialists to
establish industries here. We know that if they can be
offered a rail link with connections to the south and to
Dublin that would be an inducement to establish here. When
speaking on the Estimate for the Department of Transport and
Power some time ago I recommended that foreign
industrialists who were operating in the western region and
who had heavy transport costs should be given some
concessions on the trains to Dublin. Some of those trains
are travelling with empty wagons and if my proposal were
adopted it would be an added attraction to industrialists to
establish themselves in the western region. At the moment
they cannot compete with undertakings on the eastern coast
that do not have to face the additional heavy transport
costs. In fact, CIE are implementing their policy of
withdrawing their services from the western region with the
decision they took some time ago to withdraw freight
delivery from the Connemara area.

So far as I am concerned the line we are discussing is
more important than any other line that was closed. I
realise that the Minister or some of the Deputies behind him
may say that Fianna Fáil also closed down some lines.
That is quite true and I am not denying it but I would point
out that this line is unique in many ways. It is connecting
Munster with Connacht. It is an independent line -it cannot
be described as a branch line-and, for that reason, it
cannot be compared with the other lines that were closed in
the past. In addition, it is serving an area that is
underdeveloped.

In 1974 CIE published their rail plan for the eighties
and one excerpt from that is sufficient to justify retention
of this line. They stated that "where passenger services are
uneconomic they will continue to be provided so long as the
Government consider they are socially justified". That is
very important because if the rail service is to be
considered a social necessity surely this line must be first
on the list. In no place in the rest of the country is it
more socially justified than in the west of Ireland. Perhaps
the Government think that retention of this line is not
socially justified? According to the Minister's statement
last night, I am afraid that is their opinion.

It must be evident to everybody that the continuation of
service on this line is socially justified. Why then have
CIE decided to discontinue the passenger service and
substitute it with a bus service which is inadequate? The
bus service is inadequate, firstly, because it will not
serve many parts of the area concerned, and, secondly,
because passengers on a bus have not the same comforts they
would have if travelling on a train. They do not have
sanitary or dining facilities which are available on a
train, and it must be remembered that young children and old
people need those facilities.

This line is unique because of the number of trains going
to Knock each season. During the summer months about seven
trains travel to Knock on that line every Sunday and a big
number of invalids are carried on them. How are those
pilgrims to travel if this line is closed? How can CIE
facilitate those invalids on buses, many of whom must bring
with them their wheelchairs and their crutches? It is very
unfair to these people that the line is being closed down.
When the line is closed the Tuam Archdiocese will be the
only diocese without a railway line.

The Minister for the Gaeltacht has been telling the
people that it is his intention to establish a Western
Development Board. It is my view that until such time as
this board is established-the Government have already
publicly committed themselves to do this-the rail service
should not be withdrawn. If the rail service is withdrawn,
it will make the work of the proposed board more difficult
because the rail service was considered one of the assets
which could be used in the development of the west. For that
reason it is futile for the board of CIE to talk of closing
down the line at the same time as the Government are
considering establishing a development board for the
west.

The roads to the west of Ireland are not capable of
taking the express buses we are supposed to be getting. To
make the roads fit for this type of transport we would need
to spend a considerable amount of money on them but the
allocation to Galway County Council has been reduced by
£101,000. In 1975 the allocation was £772,450
while in 1976 the council will be getting £671,000. Our
requirement for 1976 was £985,710. From this it can be
seen that there is no possibility of bringing our roads up
to a standard capable of catering for the kind of service
proposed.

With regard to selling the service, I can give an example
which will illustrate why CIE are not getting the support
they feel they are entitled to on this line. At a meeting in
Gort it was stated that it takes eight days for a small
parcel to be conveyed from Dublin to Gort by rail. That
complaint was made by a businessman. How could CIE expect to
get support for this line if that is the situation? Similar
delays are experienced in other towns along the line.

Some time ago Castrol opened a depot in Athenry because
they considered it would be cheaper and that they could give
a better service to the garages in the west. However, the
deliveries for the garages in the west were brought from
Athenry to Dublin and back down again. Garages were getting
a worse service from CIE than if Castrol continued to
operate from Dublin. That is another indication of why CIE
were not supported.

Tuam, one of the important towns in my constituency, will
be affected if this line is closed. One of the major
industries in that town is the Tuam Sugar Factory and 70 per
cent of the beet for this factory is conveyed by rail. If
this line is closed, and I have no doubt, irrespective of
what the Minister may say in trying to justify CIE's action,
that it will eventually close, the future of the factory is
in jeopardy. That factory is the major employer in that
area. The beet acreage this year has been increased but a
disruption of the rail service would be disastrous for the
factory. A lot of beet was brought last year from the Mallow
and Thurles factories to Tuam by rail but if the rail line
is closed down, how will this be conveyed in future?

I should like to point out to the Minister that two years
ago a private haulier was engaged to draw sugar from the
Thurles and Carlow factories to Tuam. Where were the
salesmen of CIE when this was happening? Why did CIE not
attempt to get that contract? At a meeting in Tuam when this
matter was discussed I heard how CIE were treating the
factories in Claremorris and Castlebar. In relation to this
we should also consider that at present there are people
operating off the west coast hoping to find oil and natural
gas. Some business people in Galway city are preparing for
the day when natural gas and oil will be brought ashore. In
that event it is important that there should be a rail link
to cope with this but, instead, the rail service is being
withdrawn.

CIE should not be allowed to continue their present
method of planning in isolation and full emphasis should be
placed on the future development of services to cater for
the demands and the needs of the people in the west. I
should like to mention some anomalies in the service as it
operates at present. The afternoon Shannon-Galway bus
service runs in direct competition with the 14.05 train from
Limerick to Ballina. Surely that is bad planning. How can
CIE expect the people to support both services? Station
improvements which could easily be carried out during the
week are done on Sundays and the workers are paid double
time. Why does this happen? It is adding further to the bill
submitted to us annually by CIE. The Ballina-Limerick
service consists of one full journey in each direction daily
and the locomotive involved is never shut down. It idles for
12 hours and 21 minutes daily and in the process uses
approximately five gallons of diesel per hour. Is it any
wonder CIE are running at a loss? What happens in the case
of the other 130 odd engines they have? These are just a few
illustrations of the type of service provided. As far as
telling us tonight, or at any other time, that the
alternative service will be better than what we have we can
only look at what happened in other parts of the country. A
case in point was the closure of the Attymon-Loughrea line
and the service provided there to bring workers into
Loughrea in the morning, workers who had to thumb their way
home at night or hire a car. That is the type of alternative
service and there is no point in saying a bus service will
be better. It will not. I am appealing to the Minister even
at this late stage to use his influence with CIE because I
am sure, having appointed the board, as Deputy Donnellan has
pointed out, then if they do not do what he asks them he can
sack them.

Mr. Donnellan: I find
myself in a rather awkward position when talking about the
rail passenger service between Limerick and Claremorris.
People have been protesting and they have asked me to
approach the Government about the closure of this passenger
service. I might say hard things about the Minister and the
board but, since the 1958 Act came into operation, a great
many lines have been closed here, there and everywhere.
Those closures never split the Fianna Fáil Party and
the closure of this line between Limerick and Claremorris
will not keep me from supporting this Government on this
occasion. The fact is the Minister has not the first or last
say in this matter. I did a little research and I have here
a couple of quotations from prominent Members of this House.
I have two in particular. Both these Members are now
deceased. I refer to the late Deputy Seán Lemass and
the late Deputy Childers. The late Deputy Lemass, speaking
as Minister for Industry and Commerce on the Transport Bill,
1958, had this to say at column 1595 of Volume 167 of the
Official Report:

This Bill empowers the board to close down any line or
any station for which there is clearly no future. It
empowers them to close down a line or station ontheir own
decision without having to seek the prior approval of the
Transport Tribunal.

They are, however, given a statutory direction not to
terminate any rail service, except where they first satisfy
themselves that there are no prospects of its continued
operation [720] being economic within a reasonable
period. The board are, of course, also placed under a
general obligation so to conduct the undertaking as to
eliminate losses on its working by 31st March, 1964. That
means, in effect, that the fate of any branch line or any
station, depends on whether sufficient business is generated
to justify its retention and the future of these lines and
stations will be determined primarily, therefore, by the
amount of local support given to them.

The effect of that arrangement is to put local
communities in the position that they will have to make up
their minds whether they can keep a railway service going. A
railway service can be justified only if there is local need
for it and local support sufficient to keep it going.

Some Deputies opposite are critical of the Minister and
the board of CIE but that is what the late Deputy
Seán Lemass had to say on the Transport Bill of 1958.
One could find many quotations. I have just picked two. The
second is the late Deputy Childers speaking on the same
Bill. He had this to say at column 541 of Volume 186 of the
Official Report:

One last word. The terms of the 1958 Act made it clear to
every Deputy that CIE would drastically alter the character
of services. In giving CIE exceutive power to close
uneconomic lines every Deputy knew this could only be done
in the public interest by rejecting the short-lived
universal protests prevalent here and elsewhere against
railway closings at the time that such intentions are made
public. They are responsible and they alone for making this
decision; they ordained and wrote the new policy into the
Statute Book.

In the course of the protest about the closure of this
line the chairman and the Board of CIE have got a great deal
of stick. I know the chairman of the board and some of the
members of the board quite well and I believe we have as
good a chairman and as good a board as ever we had despite
people saying that it would be as well to sack these
gentlemen. From the start of this protest the emphasis was
generally concentrated on the Galway section of the line
from Gort, Loughrea, Athenry and Tuam. If yesterday one had
taken away from the protesters outside the gate here the
people from Tuam and Athenry the protesters would have been
very small in number indeed, less than five. The alleged
protesters from Limerick, Clare and Mayo were conspicuous by
their absence.

The people from Athenry were the first to kick off. They
held a meeting four or five weeks ago to which all the
public representatives in Galway were invited. Some did not
attend and they probably had good reason for not doing so. I
was asked as a result of that meeting to arrange a meeting
with the Board of CIE and the chairman. First of all, the
people wanted a meeting with the Minister. Eventually they
decided they would meet the chairman and the board and we
had a very long meeting at which a powerful case was made
for the retention of this line. One would think, listening
to Deputy Hussey, that the whole line was going. It is the
passenger service that is being withdrawn. The line is being
left and a bus service is being substituted for the present
passenger service. On a second deputation to the Minister
there were representatives of every station from Limerick to
Claremorris. Business interests and other interests
connected with the railway were represented and some of them
were outside the gate yesterday.

When in 1974 they were informed, although not officially,
that CIE proposed to withdraw the passenger service from the
Limerick-Claremorris line they said they did not mind as
long as the freight service remained. Seemingly when some
lobbying got going some of these people, for one reason or
another, decided to jump on the band wagon and get a little
publicity. I do not think their intentions were as
honourable as they expressed them to be. Personally, I would
like to see the passenger service retained, but it is very
had to make a case for its retention. Indeed, I would much
prefer to see it being withdrawn under some other Government
than under this Government. I mean that sincerely.

Mr. Hussey: The most
vocal people were the Deputy's own supporters.

Mr. Donnellan:
Possibly some of them were, but some of the Deputy's
supporters talked loudly about it, too. CIE propose to
substitute a number of buses for the passenger service.
There are now eight buses for Tuam alone and there will be a
further two. Surely ten buses must be better than one train,
and it is quite possible that at some time in the future
people will be able to say: "We were wrong about the removal
of the passenger service because the bus service with which
CIE have replaced it has proved more efficient and can get
you from one place to another much faster". CIE themselves
say these buses provide faster travel in comparable comfort,
and they also say it may mean an improvement in the service
rather than a disimprovement.

Deputy Hussey said that 70 per cent of the beet brought
into the Tuam Sugar Factory last year went by train. Surely
this change will not stop it from doing the same this year.
If there is twice or three times as much beet brought to the
Tuam factory this year, the freight service is still there.
It is wrong for people to suggest that the rail line is
going entirely. A great deal of rail line was removed over
the past number of years. In fact, I have a list of them
here from 1958 onwards. When Fianna Fáil were in
Government they removed a total of 732 miles of railway
line, both passenger and freight. Not alone that but the
tracks were taken up and sold along with the ground they
were on and whatever other property was in the area.
Therefore, if one is to talk about this in a political
sense, there is no justification for blaming the Minister or
the Government for removing a passenger service and
replacing it with a bus service when, as I say, Fianna
Fáil removed 732 miles of railway since 1958.

It has been suggested that there should be a postponement
of the closure for a few months, that people might start to
support the line and it might become viable, and also that
the loss was only £250,000. Deputy Hussey made what I
thought was a very sensible comment when he referred to the
fact that the Western Development Board was being set up
some time this year. When we are talking about western
development we are talking about it in its entirety and in
doing so it is necessary to have a rail service there.
However, I have no doubt that, in the light of this
development board being set up, the Minister for Transport
and Power and the board of CIE, if they think a passenger
train service between Limerick and Claremorris is necessary
it will be provided. Once the lines are there it is always
possible to get the train back on them.

Over the past 20 years there was emigration from the
west. That exists no longer, and there is no longer a fall
in population in the west. Efforts are being made quite
successfully to industrialise the west. The industrial
development officer who acted as chairman of the protest
committee expressed the opinion, and I suppose quite
justifiably, that, if the west was to be denuded of rail
services it would make it more difficult for him in his
capacity as industrial officer in Galway to get
industrialists to come to towns such as Loughrea, Athenry,
Tuam, Claremorris, and so on. In saying that he was, I
think, presupposing that the removal of the freight services
would automatically follow the removal of the passenger
service.

I want to impress upon the Minister that we in the west
of Ireland do not want CIE, at any stage in the future, to
put a notice in the paper giving the minimum statutory
notice of two months that they intend to close the freight
service. As a representative of the area, I want to say
clearly that I would not support the Government on that. If
the freight service is not there it will be all the more
difficult to set up the industries that mean so much to
Galway.

Deputy Barrett mentioned GAA specials. I am informed by
the Minister and CIE that there will be no interference with
any special trains. They will run on the same lines as in
the past. There will be no such thing as rerouting from one
station to another. On that ground there can be no
complaint. Reference was also made to the Knock special and
as far as I know that will not be interfered with either.
The Minister and CIE have said clearly that there will be no
change in this and trains will run in a similar pattern to
that in the past.

When the western development board is set up, the people
who are protesting now about the closure of this passenger
service should be given ample opportunity to meet the board.
If there is sufficient growth of population and industrial
development in the west, and if there is a need to return
this passenger service between Limerick and Claremorris, it
can be returned. That, of course, will happen if the bus
service to be laid on by CIE proves unsatisfactory. It is
possible that this bus service will be better than the
passenger rail service provided in the past.

CIE said that they intend to develop a number of stations
between Limerick and Claremorris. They said that major rail
heads catering for all rail freight services would be set up
in Limerick, Ennis and Claremorris and that a palletised
fertiliser rail depot-sundries are under review-in the Gort,
Athenry and Tuam stations. It is not traditional for people
to travel from north to south.

Mr. Hussey: They
do.

Mr. Donnellan: It is
much more traditional for people to travel from east to
west. If one were to go on the passenger train in Tuam on
any day, over the past number of years, one would note that
the number of people travelling is very small. In a
fortnight last summer less than £5 was taken in at the
Gort station. Regardless of the public protest being made
for the retention of this line, I feel there is a lack of
public support for it. It does not operate at such a loss,
because £250,000 in relation to the entire subvention
for CIE is small. Any saving is worthwhile and the buses
which are being put on now will pay for themselves, but if
£250,000 is saved, I hope CIE will put it into other
services for the west.

Mr. Kitt: I, too,
wish to support the motion in the names of Deputy Barrett
and his colleagues. I am very disappointed that there has
not been any protest from the Government benches about the
closure of the passenger service of the Limerick-Claremorris
line. The Minister reminded us last night of a Dáil
Deputy, now deceased, who, as Shakespeare said, protested
too much at a particular CIE closure and later went on to
lose his seat. This message must have got home to Government
Deputies.

I do not see why this closure should become a political
football. It has not been in any of the meetings we had so
far. The deputation from the west represented all shades of
political opinion. It was led by the Galway County Manager
who pointed out that we in the west feared that this was the
thin end of the wedge so far as railways were concerned. The
commitment of the people in the west to the continuance of a
rail passenger service on this line must have been obvious
to the Minister at that meeting. We fear that this line will
be eventually closed and other lines serving the west will
suffer the same fate.

The deputation which met the Minister on 3rd March could
not travel by rail that morning to keep their appointment
with the Minister. That in itself is an example of the
service which is available in the west at the moment. The
county manager and the county development officer are to be
congratulated on the excellent work they did in preparing
their case. I believe the Minister was grossly unfair to the
Western Action Group in his reply last night when he said
they would be better off to organise trade for CIE and
freight for the line rather than organising protests and
pickets. Surely it is the function of CIE to make their
service more attractive. If they do this, they will get the
support of the local people.

One of the main reasons for the picket was that the
Taoiseach refused to meet them. Perhaps the Minister
expected the deputation to arrive in sackcloth and ashes. He
met them on Ash Wednesday. He must have been impressed by
the fine case they put up. As was pointed out, this is the
biggest ever CIE closure. The bare two months' notice, which
the company are statutorily compelled to give, were all that
were given in this case. We believe the Government should
have shown more resistance and we are asking that a reprieve
be given for a further period and the quality of the service
improved. This would encourage more people to use the
service. The line serves a vast area. It is the only line
connecting Munster directly with Connacht, stretching from
Limerick to Mayo and running through four counties. It
serves the important towns of Ennis, Tuam, Gort and Athenry.
Its closure was not included in CIE's Rail Plan, 80. There
is the question, too, of redundancies. The people of Athenry
were the first to show their concern in this regard when
they organised a meeting to discuss the situation. In all
there will be a loss of 21 jobs with resulting hardship for
the workers and their families. The decision is particularly
reprehensible at a time of high unemployment because it will
affect both the farming community and the business people of
the areas. Both existing and potential industries will be
affected because industrialists will fear a total
closure.

Among the reasons given for the closure is that the
service is losing money but it should be pointed out that
nowhere in the EEC are railways a paying proposition.
Therefore, we must ask why the west of Ireland is being
chosen on this occasion. We are told that the annual loss on
the service is £250,000. That is a nice even figure but
CIE do not give us a breakdown of the receipts and expenses.
It might be more convincing for them to give us figures
either of £249,000 or £251,000. If the total loss
is £250,000 on the passenger trains alone, this means a
loss of £1,400 per day, a figure which seems
impossible. Therefore, the figure given would seem to be
totally exaggerated.

Another reason given for the closure is the cost of
maintaining the line but it will still have to be maintained
at goods standard. In addition, CIE's wage bill will be
reduced considerably by reason of the 21 redundancies. In
other words, it would appear that the total loss must be
less than £100,000 or less than a quarter of 1 per cent
of the company's projected total loss for 1976. This amount
is very small when one considers that the subvention for CIE
last year was in the region of £28 million. For the
small amount involved by way of loss, a real service is
being removed.

The Minister referred last evening to the Transport Act,
1958. Section 19, subsection (2), of that Act states that
the board shall not terminate a service unless they are
satisfied that its operation is uneconomic and that there is
no prospect of its continued operation being economic within
a reasonable period. We are not told by CIE why they
consider this line to be uneconomic. They are not giving us
any figures but if my figures are correct, the line is not
uneconomic when compared with other lines both in Ireland
and in other countries. Another aspect of the matter is that
CIE have a social as well as a commercial role. They tell us
that there is a limit to their social function but if the
annual loss on this line is less than £100,000 they
must fulfil their social role in regard to it.

The other reason given for the closure is poor passenger
support. On the face of it, this may be correct but we must
ask what the quality of the service is like and what
attempts have the company made to sell the line. Should they
not have been able to take advantage of their position
vis-á-vis the private motorist during the past few
years when there have been massive increases in petrol
prices, 12 increases in all which have brought the cost of a
gallon of petrol from 36p in March, 1973, to almost 90p
today or an increase of 52p? There have been increases, too,
in motor taxation and insurance has increased by more than
70 per cent in that time. Despite this situation, CIE do not
appear to have made any attempt to go after that market and
there must be such a market in the west of Ireland. The
service is needed, for instance, to bring students to
colleges in addition to bringing workers to their places of
employment. In the west we want a service that is as good as
any in the southern, the eastern or the northern parts of
the country.

I would refer briefly to the proposed substitute bus
service. Past experience has shown only too forcibly that
CIE do not honour their promises. One example in this regard
is the proposed luxury service which they said would replace
the Kiltymon-Loughrea passenger train. The service they have
inaugurated to replace the train service is such that while
it brings workers to Loughrea in the mornings it will not
serve the purpose of returning them to their homes in the
evening. This creates much difficulty for the people of the
area, many of whom I have witnessed hitching lifts home.

In addition, the roads in the west are not suited to the
purpose of these proposed luxury buses. They are taxed
almost to their maximum in catering for existing traffic.
Apart from this, they do not serve the towns of Craughwell,
Athenry and Ballyglunin. Instead, they continue on the main
road to Galway city. Travellers from Limerick to Tuam and
Claremorris do not wish to go via Galway where they may be
held up for long periods in traffic jams. Similarly,
travellers from Ennis and Gort to Dublin who now travel via
Athenry will in the future have to go to Galway by bus in
order to connect with the Dublin train.

Another factor in this is that the allocation for roads
to Galway County Council has been reduced by more than
£100,000 this year compared with last year. The
Limerick-Claremorris train for all its faults, some of which
we have mentioned, has walk-around space, dining facilities
and sanitary and washing facilities. CIE's regulations
compel them to provide sanitary facilities on all train
journeys exceeding one-and-a-half hours. Elderly people and
children need frequent access to these facilities. There are
no sanitary or washing facilities on the proposed luxury
buses where any journeys exceed the one-and-a-half hours
prescribed by CIE's health regulations.

I should like to point out that the train journey from
Ballina to Limerick takes 3 hours 55 minutes whereas the bus
journey over the same route takes 4 hours 45 minutes. In
other words, the bus journey takes three-quarters of an hour
longer. I should like to refer to the reply the Minister
gave to Deputy Loughnane on 11th March, Official Report,
Volume 288, No. 12, column 1859, when he said:

I am very keen to see that every traveller on CIE is
carried as comfortably and as quickly as possible to his
chosen point of destination.

The Minister said those words to night also. I should
like to ask him how he can reconcile that statement with the
fact that those buses will take three-quarters of an hour
longer to do the same journey the train does. We should be
concerned, as the Minister says, that CIE carry people as
comfortably and as quickly as possible to their chosen point
of destination.

There is excursion traffic on this line, as has already
been pointed out, apart from the weekday passenger trains.
Mention has been made of the GAA specials and of the seaside
trains which cover this route. Indeed, of great importance,
are the Knock pilgrimage trains. All such trains from
Munster use this route every Sunday from May to October.
Each train carries roughly 400 to 500 passengers. The
Minister told us that those trains will function this year.
What guarantee have we that those trains will continue to
function every year? Buses could not cope with such huge
numbers of pilgrims nor could one rail route into
Claremorris via Athlone handle this traffic. A huge increase
in this traffic is expected as we approach the centenary
year. The archbishop of Tuam has expressed concern about
those trains as well.

The board of CIE informed the deputation that they were
pursuing their policy of developing their services in the
west. This may be so but one gets the feeling that they are
developing the road services at the expense of the rail
services. There is duplication of passenger train and bus
services on the Claremorris-Limerick line with the bus
departing 20 minutes ahead of the train. In other words, the
bus service runs in direct competition with the
Claremorris-Limerick line. It is most unfair
competition.

A further example I can give is that a weekend return
Ballina to Claremorris rail ticket costs £1.40. The
upward journey is made by rail and the downward one is made
by bus as there is no Sunday service to Ballina yet. Out of
that £1.40 a sum of £1.35 goes to the bus service
and 5p is credited to the rail service. It is about time the
bus service began to pay for itself.

CIE services in the west can be measured by the fact that
it takes eight days for a small parcel to travel from Dublin
to Gort. This has already been pointed out. A further
example I can give is that a parcel sent from Claremorris to
Tuam travels first to Dublin, then down to Galway and
eventually arrives at Tuam. Similar delays are experienced
at all stations along the line.

We hear a lot nowadays about developing the west. Prior
to the west Mayo by-election the Minister for the Gaeltacht
announced the setting up of the Western Development Board. I
would like to refer to a reply I received to a parliamentary
question I put to the Minister for the Public Service. He
said:

The organisation and structure of the Western Development
Board is being examined at present by the Departments
concerned before beginning consultation with interested
bodies. It is not possible to say at this stage what the
implications for various agencies, authorities and local
bodies will be when the board is set up. This will depend on
the powers and functions ultimately assigned to the
board.

It seems ironic to me at times when various Departments
are examining the organisation and structure of the proposed
western board that the Government are allowing the
Limerick-Claremorris line to be discontinued. Indeed, from
what we have heard the Government are approving the decision
of CIE. We must ask if the Government are genuinely
interested in developing the west.

The Minister for Transport and Power, the man who is
accountable for the decisions of CIE, should not allow this
to happen particularly as the proposed Western Development
Board is to be set up. I understand it will co-ordinate the
services which already exist in the west of Ireland.
Certainly, no decision should be taken concerning the
removal of the passenger service on this line until the
Western Development Board is set up. Surveys have been
carried out by various bodies in the west. For example, in
the towns of Tuam, Athenry and Loughrea, the various bodies
there have met and have put forward proposals and
alternative timetables to CIE. Every year when the Estimates
are discussed Members of the Oireachtas put forward
proposals but, unfortunately, these seem to fall on deaf
ears.

We are all concerned that a reprieve should be given to
this line for a further period so that negotiations can take
place among the interested parties. We are also asking that
the quality of the service be improved. We feel in that way
that the Claremorris-Limerick line may be made more
attractive and that the local people will use it. The last
thing I want to refer to is the development that is taking
place at the moment in north-west Connacht. A railway line
would be of immense benefit to the industrialists who might
come into the area and to the people in the area. It is very
important, with all this development and the proposed board
that is to be set up, that this line be given a reprieve and
that the quality of the service is improved.

Mr. Finn: I feel it
is my duty as a Deputy from the west and a Government Deputy
to express the opinions of the workers and the people in
that area on the passenger service from Ballina to Limerick
being taken from us. I come from a county which has suffered
drastically as a result of the closure of lines. The Achill
line to Westport was closed. The line from Killala to
Ballina was closed. This would be of tremendous help if we
had it at the moment. The line from Ballinrobe to
Claremorris was closed and the old line from Collooney to
Claremorris was also closed. This had provided a passenger
and freight service in the area. Recently we had the
demotion of the Ballyhaunis railway station which handled
freight.

It is my duty to put before the Minister the concern of
some of the people in the west, particularly the workers who
do not know where they are andwho are frightened as a result
of the passenger service from Ballina to Limerick being
taken from them. They feel this is the thin end of the
wedge. I have an assurance from the Minister that this is
not the case. No country in the world has a railway system
which pays. The line from Ballina provides a link with
Limerick and the south. This is one of the biggest closures
we have had. I do not know whether it is wise. The board of
CIE feel it is. Under the 1958 Act the Minister has not got
great power over the board. Other State-sponsored bodies
were set up by Fianna Fáil Governments. They gave too
much power to those boards.

Deputy McLaughlin put down a question to the Minister for
Transport and Power about CIE. The Ceann Comhairle told him
he regretted having to disallow the question addressed to
the Minister concerning the delivery by CIE of goods. He
said it was a matter for CIE and the Minister had no
official responsibility in regard to it. It is a sad
situation that any Deputy elected by the people should not
be entitled to get an answer from the Minister in charge of
a particular Department. This is why I say all
State-sponsored bodies have too much power. There are good
technical men in the State-sponsored bodies who see things
in their own light and not as they are seen by the workers
and the general public. I am voicing their opinions.

In this case we will have the displacement of workers who
will have to get gratuities and pensions. Would it not be
better to keep them in employment? They may have to receive
unemployment benefit at a later stage. I wonder is this good
economics. A Private Members' motion has been put down by
the Opposition. Every western Deputy is in favour of a
transport system for the west. I would hate to see the
Opposition challenging a division on this motion. Things are
improving in the west and we hate to see any displacement in
the services there.

It has been said that the bus service will give a better
service to the people who will avail of it but I have my
doubts about that. A bus cannot provide the same service as
a train where you can have a cup of tea and where there are
toilets, and so on. If this closure is the policy of the
board of CIE there is very little the Minister can do about
it.

In 1958-59 there were five closures. In 1959-60 there
were seven closures. In 1960-61 there were three closures.
That all happened under Fianna Fáil. In 1962-63 there
were 13 branch line closures. The board at that time said
they were uneconomic and they were closed. As a Government
Deputy I have to support my Minister and the Government on
this issue. That is exactly what members of Fianna
Fáil did when the other closures took place. I have
no intention of voting against the Government. I will
support them but I want to pinpoint my views and the views
of the workers and the general public who have come to me
protesting about it. I attended several meetings held with a
view to bringing pressure on the Minister to keep the line
open.

It has been brought to my notice that the trains from
Ballina to Limerick are not run at the proper time. Surely
the train should leave Ballina at 9 o'clock or some time
like that in the morning to bring people to Limerick at a
reasonable time and bring them back that night. I am led to
believe that a train leaves Ballina at around 3 o'clock.
Therefore people have to stay overnight in Limerick. This is
why the service has failed. I am sorry the date of 5th April
has been fixed. It is a pity that a train could not leave at
8 or 9 o'clock in the morning from Ballina for Limerick. If
that were given a chance for six months, I guarantee it
would get support from the general public. The management of
CIE have not looked into this case properly.

In my discussions with the Minister on this matter I was
told that the freight services will be continued on the line
and that will be a good thing. The Minister has given an
assurance that this proposed closure is not the thin end of
the wedge as was stated by some Deputies on the other side.
We hope that when the Western Development Board are set up
they will look into this matter in a rather different way
and perhaps the passenger service from Ballina to Limerick
will be brought back. I would be very happy if this were
done and I know many people would be satisfied also.

Mr. Calleary: As one
of those who signed the motion I should like to speak a few
words in favour of it. It was not put down for political
reasons but because a very representative meeting asked for
the matter to be raised in the Dáil and the
Government Deputies who attended that meeting were asked to
sign the motion.

The deputation who met the Minister reflected all shades
of political opinion. It included three county development
officers, at least one county manager, the chairmen of Ennis
UDC and of Tuam Town Commissioners as well as a number of
business people. Not only did the deputation protest about
the proposed closure but they gave positive recommendations
to the Minister on how the service could be improved. They
also pointed out that the people in the areas considered
this was the thin end of the wedge because this is what
happened in areas where passenger services have been
discontinued. We had proof of that in the
Balla-Swinford-Kiltimagh-Ballyhaunis areas a short time ago
when the freight services were discontinued. If the Minister
tells us he has no power over CIE to stop this closure, then
the assurances he has given to Deputy Finn are of very
little use if CIE decide to close the line.

I was very disappointed with the Minister's speech
yesterday because he appeared to have accepted that there
was no means by which CIE could be made viable. The
impression seemed to be that if this small passenger service
was closed it might repair one of the small leaks in CIE.
What is needed is a complete reappraisal and a general
rethink of all CIE policies.

One thing that appears to have come out of the debate is
that the "specials" will be continued from Limerick to
Claremorris and on to Knock. It was stated at the deputation
that the line would not be abandoned but that it would not
be maintained to the standard required for passenger
services. It was also stated that only a small maintenance
team will be kept on this line. I am asking the Minister if
he is satisfied that the line will be safe for the
"specials" to travel on, in view of the information given to
us and which was given to the trade union representative who
spoke at the deputation. I sympathise with Deputy Donnellan
and with Deputy Finn.

Mr. Donnellan: There
is no need to sympathise with me.

Mr. Calleary: It was
rather a case of Hobson's choice for them. I can remember
the fine, fiery speech Deputy Donnellan made at the
deputation meeting. That speech might even be called an
ultimatum to the Minister. I can remember the Deputy
standing up, shaking his fist and saying to the Minister,
"You put them there and you have the power to sack
them."

Mr. Donnellan: The
Deputy should not misquote me.

Mr. Calleary: If the
Deputy likes I will go a little further. He said we had come
from west Mayo and that we appeared to have a certain
success in the appeal we made. He shook his fist and said to
the Minister, "You put them there; you have the power to
sack them unless they do what you tell them." It was a very
different speech from the one the Deputy made in the House
this evening. However, as I have told the Deputy, I have a
certain sympathy for him.

The Minister has told us that there will be a vast
improvement in the line from Dublin to Ballina and that this
improvement is already there. I am sorry to disagree with
the Minister but I must tell him that this line is nothing
short of deplorable.

Mr. P. Barry: I did
not say it was already there.

Mr. Calleary: An
improvement is badly needed. Anything that is done will be
better than what is there now. CIE do not appear to consider
any suggestions that come from the people who are using
their services. We had the example of the train that left
Westport at 8.05 a.m.; the service was used extensively but
it was discontinued. People who travel to Ballina for the
weekend must get a bus from Ballina station to Claremorris
for the return journey. The journey by bus takes one hour,
30 minutes or one hour, 45 minutes instead of the 40 minutes
by train. The closure of this line will mean that students
from this area who attend at UCG will now have to travel by
bus, a journey which will take much longer. From my own
experience I know that the journey will not be a comfortable
one.

Mr. Coogan: The
students do not travel every day; they only go there once
every three months. I know all about UCG.

Mr. MacSharry: UCG
know about the Deputy.

Mr. Calleary: The
Deputy is more interested in electricity.

Mr. Coogan: I will
give the Deputy an odd shock.

Mr. Calleary: He is
more interested in electricity at bus stations and bus
stops.

Mr. MacSharry: At
tigeens.

Mr. Coogan: The
Deputy is off the rails; the signals are against him.

Mr. Calleary: We were
told about previous closures by Deputies Donnellan and Finn
and I am prepared to say that many of them were mistakes but
I am not prepared to admit that they were as important as a
through link; they were all ends. The mistakes made then are
now being compounded and it appears that we have learned
little from them. Section 19, subsection (2), of the
Transport Act, 1958, states:

The Board shall not terminate a service unless it is
satisfied that its operation is uneconomic and that there is
no prospect of its continued operation being economic within
a reasonable period.

One of the suggestions made by the deputation was that
CIE adopt a different timetable; that they would consider
the use of freight cars and would, in general, try to cater
for the needs of the community. They asked that their
suggestions be given a chance but their appeals fell on deaf
ears.

We are now approaching a period when the line will show a
profit. Almost every Sunday from now until the end of the
summer season more than 400 people use the trains on this
line travelling to Knock. The Minister should have told CIE
to keep the line open on a trial basis, look into the
suggestions made by the deputation and the alternative
timetable prepared by a member of that deputation.

Mr. Donnellan: What
does the Deputy think of the alternative timetable?

Mr. Calleary: I was
disappointed at the Minister's condemnation of the picket
because they are fighting to save a passenger service. The
Minister felt they would have been better employed if they
had tried to organise freight. That is ominous and indicates
that not only have CIE axed the passenger service but that
they have decided to take the freight service from this area
in the near future.

Mr. Donnellan: That
is what the Deputy's own party did in the past. In fact,
they even took up the lines and sold them.

Mr. Calleary: I said
that if we were not prepared to learn from the mistakes of
the past we should not be here.

Mr. Donnellan: Is the
Deputy admitting that his party made a lot of mistakes in
the past?

Mr. Calleary:
Mistakes were made in the past but we should not compound
them now.

Mr. Donnellan: When
it suits the Deputy he refers to the passenger service and
when it suits him he refers to the freight service.

Mr. Calleary: The
Deputy has said a lot of things at different times when it
suited him to different people. The Minister should ask CIE
to try out some of the alternatives recommended by the
deputation to give the line a chance to prove it can be made
viable.

Mr. Barrett: We did
not put down this motion solely for political reasons. It
was put down at the request of the action committee and the
deputation who met the Minister and CIE representatives. We
gave the opportunity to Government Deputies to sign this
motion because it was being put down at the request of
people from their own parties. Prior to putting down the
motion we endeavoured to submit questions but they were
refused. It was held that this was a matter for the board of
CIE. Many meetings were held and a deputation met the
Minister and CIE representatives but all this action was to
no avail. It was then that the motion was put down to which
the Government have put down an amendment.

Our motion contains the true feelings of the people who
are concerned about the closure of this line. The Minister
referred to my use of the word "closure". Closing a
passenger service from Limerick to Claremorris in my view is
a closure. We did not seek to keep the line open
indefinitely because we are aware of the tremendous losses
within CIE. That has always been the concern of Members on
this side of the House but, nevertheless, we realise that
CIE have a function apart from the economic function. They
have a social function. Surely the keeping of this line in
operation up through the west of Ireland could only be
described as a social function. Government Deputies have
referred to previous closures but I should like to remind
them that these were not closures of this magnitude. This is
a main line from Limerick to Claremorris and the previous
closures were branch lines. The statements made by the late
Seán Lemass and the late Erskine Childers in 1958
were made in the context of that period. We could find
quotations made by the then Opposition which would help our
case but we did not resort to that.

During the course of his contribution Deputy Donnellan
said that £5 was the total takings at Gort station for
two weeks. He may be correct but it should be remembered
that CIE bear the responsibility for this. Over a number of
years they allowed this line to run down and it seems to
have been their policy to allow this happen. Why, for
example, is the timetable not suited for connection with
mainline trains in Claremorris and Limerick? If CIE were
concerned about maintaining the line as a viable proposition
why did they introduce the expressway bus services in
conjunction with this line? They went into open competition
through the expressway buses and now they come along to us
weeping and crying because the service is losing a quarter
of a million pounds. It is mainly because of their own
actions the service is losing this £250,000.

We have asked questions, to which we expected replies, as
to how this figure of £250,000 was arrived at and we
got neither a reply nor a breakdown of the figure. As I said
tonight and as other speakers said last night, this figure
is suspect. It will remain suspect because the chairman has
stated that of the total costings in CIE 63 per cent
represents labour costs. If we accept that statement as
correct, the total cost of labour on this particular line-30
people on £2,000 a year-is £60,000. We will be
generous and say the total cost cannot be more than
£100,000. If we are wrong, why are we not told we are
wrong? We can only believe we are right in our suspicions
about this figure of £250,000.

Deputy Donnellan found fault with the deputation. He said
it was not representative of the area or it was
representative of only a very small area.

Mr. Donnellan: Excuse
me now. I did not say it was not representative of the area.
I said the picket on the gate was not representative of the
area. I know the deputation was representative because I was
the one who arranged it.

Mr. Barrett: What
makes anything representative? County managers, county
development officers, chambers of commerce, town
commissioners, members of urban district councils, factory
managers, members of unions, members of Fine Gael-I presume
there is a Labour Party in Galway-and members of Fianna
Fáil. Do all those make a deputation representative
or how would Deputy Donnellan make up a representative
deputation?

Mr. Donnellan: What I
said is on record. What I said was the picket on the gate
yesterday was completely unrepresentative.

Mr. Barrett: I link
picket with the word "deputation".

Mr. Donnellan: If the
Deputy wants to misrepresent, let him go ahead and do
it.

Mr. Barrett: When the
deputation met the Minister Deputy Donnellan reminded the
Minister that he had done a long stint in the west telling
the people that Fine Gael was the best party. How will he go
back and tell them that after the closure of this line?

All we are looking for is a reprieve of six months for
this main line. We are not talking now about a branch line.
The Minister said the deputation and we had a negative
approach. That is not correct. We have not a negative
approach.

Mr. Donnellan: When
did the Minister say that?

Mr. Barrett: I will
quote the unrevised report.

Mr. P. Barry: I did
not say that.

Mr. Barrett: This is
the unrevised report:

I give fair warning to the House that if instead of
organising meetings, parades and pickets... they had been
organising trade for CIE and behaving in a positive way to
help maintain that line for freight they would be far better
occupied. It is a negative way of opposing something which I
know a lot of them in their hearts know is inevitable.

That is from the unrevised report and there the Minister
talks about a negative approach.

Mr. P. Barry: But not
in regard to the deputation. I did not use the word
"deputation".

Mr. Barrett: The
Minister was speaking about the deputation. That deputation,
whether representative or otherwise, put forward alternative
proposals to the Minister and CIE. They asked for a six
months' reprieve to test the alternative proposals but that
will not be granted.

Last night we showed a positive approach. We asked the
Minister during these six months to approach the social
commissioner of the EEC in order to ascertain if moneys
would be forthcoming from the social fund for this
particular line because of its social amenity function.

Mr. Donnellan: The
man in question was not very vocal when the West Clare
railway was closed.

Mr. Barrett: The man
in question is a west of Ireland man and, for the Deputy's
information, on a recent visit to Brussels I inquired if
there was any point in making an application and I was told
by those operating this fund that that should be done. It is
worth trying and it should be done. Coming back to this
figure of £100,000, if we can get a grant from the
social fund it will not cost a great deal to save this line.
Talking about £100,000 or even £250,000, whichever
is the correct figure, it is a very tiny sum in relation to
£20 million. The Minister said last night that £40
million would have to be found for the rail section of CIE
this year. If CIE have to start pruning the rail system by
closing a main line, as is proposed here, why do they not
consider alternative economies available to them in other
sections of their operations? Why are there 12 CIE staff
cars operating out of Limerick station? Remember, that is
only one station in the whole rail complex. Why do they not
take a look at operations like that?

An Leas-Cheann
Comhairle: Does the Deputy wish the motion
put?

Mr. Barrett: Yes. We
have to buy our own cars and get a mileage allowance. Why do
CIE not adopt the same policy instead of sacrificing and
victimising the people west of the Shannon by the closure of
this main line?

Mr. Donnellan:
Crocodile tears.

Mr. Barrett: The
Minister has said the freight line is in danger, too, unless
the people find business for it.